Talk:Law & Order: LA

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Law & Order task force.

Which spin-off number?

Well, this has seemed to be a contentious point, hasn't it? The truth is, it depends on which series one counts.

L&O:LA is clearly the fifth American series with "Law & Order" in its title. By the minimum count that makes this the fourth spin-off (as the original wasn't a spin-off of itself).

However, Conviction is usually solidly considered part of the franchise, as it not only obviously occupied the same universe, but actually featured as one of its leads a character created for SVU. In many ways, it is a Law & Order in all but name. But... if we consider Conviction, other series set in the universe without a "Law & Order" title that can be considered less direct spin-offs, such as Deadline, might need to be counted as well. Their connections are weaker, and not likely to be recognized by most, leading to more confusion.

And that's without even accounting for the foreign adaptations. I personally don't count those because they aren't produced by the same companies and mostly adapt pre-existing US scripts (even the UK series), which, in my opinion, makes them less original works. Others might disagree, which could lead to more conflict there.

Avoiding any potential conflict is a good idea, and the easiest way to do that is simply not reference which number spin-off it is. So I endorse the current state of the article that does just that. oknazevad (talk) 03:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, WHY does it matter? What bearing does it have on the importance of the article? –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 04:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. As I said, I agree that we don't need to reference the number.oknazevad (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I didn't mean to be snappy. I completely missed your last paragraph. After carefully reading your thoughts, I think you're thinking along exactly the same lines as me. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 21:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

S'OK.oknazevad (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crime and Punishment was set took place in San Diego

The phrase "Law & Order: Los Angeles is the first American Law & Order series not set in New York City" is not factually correct. There was a 2002 reality television spin-off of Law & Order that consisted of following real cases involving the San Diego DA's office from arrest to conviction/sentencing. That show was called Crime & Punishment. To that end, I would suggest changing this sentence to indicate that this is the first FICTIONAL L & O series to be set in a city outside of New York. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.139.35 (talk) 05:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word "set" implies fiction. Only fictional works have settings, as only fictional stories are placed into their worlds by creative personnel

More importantly, by being nonfiction, Crime & Punishment wasn't a real part of the fictional L&O franchise, nor did it bear the L&O title. It, frankly, is irrelevant to this article. oknazevad (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title Change To Law & Order: LA

The title of the show has been changed to Law & Order: LA (not Law & Order: L.A.). This is seen in the new promos and on Nikki Finke's DeadlineHollywood —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.105.42 (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see after it returns. So far the press releases and promos have called it "LA", but they also abbreviate to "SVU" all the time. What actually appears on the title cards of the episodes themselves are what we should use as the title, which we have to wait to see. oknazevad (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not title change so much as different show. A spin-off / reworking retaining about 50% of the cast. Both the gold & black opening title seen in episode 1 & 2 and the opening credits white & others colours seen in episode 2 show the show to be titled Law & Order : LA. NBC's website changed too, thought last i looked not all of the sub-pages have been changed but it has been changed on the main page for the Los Angeles-based Law & Order show. NBC's press sub-site for the show has also been renamed. Some places retain the old episodes under the new name but others don't. Probably a lot of places are not really sure what to do with this situation. Either way, Law & Order Los Angeles has ended and the black, white, red, & blue opening title is now part of franchise history. Now if only they had killed off Morales and kept Winters i would have been much more happy than i am now. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 02:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's an interesting take on it, but it isn't backed up by a reliable source calling it a new show. The facts are there, but your interpretation is a form of synthesis, and could be interpreted differently. This isn't the first time theres been wholesale cast changes in an L&O (see CI last year) or a change in opening (which has happened to some extent or another with each cast change and has even seen a change in theme for CI). And a new title card is not unique in the history of television (The Cosby Show went through a bunch in its history). So I'm going to say no to calling it a different show.

That said, we still need to decide if we move this article to Law & Order: LA. I think that move is the right call, with the opening line saying something along the line of "Law & Order: LA, originally called Law & Order: Los Angeles, is an American crime drama...". It's the easiest way to cover it, with a more detailed description included in the production history section. I'm going to go for that now, actually. oknazevad (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is just "LA". [1]. Surely people know it's Los Angeles, and not Louisiana? I'm sure. —Mike Allen 03:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never said it was much of a reliable source. My point quite was that NBC can't make up their damn mind about it. The redesigned sub-site of nbc.com used to say "premiering" but tonight it said "returning". There are how many commercials that were shown in which NBC called it a new series that premiered in X days? Then at the relatively last minute they start disowning their own claims of it being a new show premiering tonight. If you really think a new title card is something i thought important then you are more confused than NBC is. How many does The Drew Carey Show have? It is not the look of the title card. It is the content of the title card that matters and which i was writing of. And i love how you can throw out little links to policy but a charge of synthesis would be quashed by any of those commercials from NBC which call Law & Order : LA a new series that premiers 11 April at 9pm. And yes, if you actually look at the logo there is a space before and after the colon. Funny how they make the logo one way and write it another. As for cast changes, i gave up on Criminal Intent long ago. It was too hard to find on TV in Canada. But wholesale cast changes and show getting a new name all in one is not what most people would think of as similar to swapping cast on a show like is done with Criminal Intent. I am for splitting the articles, not moving this one and changing the introduction et al. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 04:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw all those promos. They did use the word "premiere", but they also used "returns". It was as though they were treating it the way they treat season premieres, which is pretty analogous to where one would see these changes. I don't think splitting is a good course of action. oknazevad (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not for a moment think any of those commercials looked like promotion for a returning show or a season première. I did find a lot of people complaining about NBC having the audacity to call it a new show. In that one matter i frighteningly found myself in agreement with NBC. Having watched it i am more certain than before of it being a new show built on the rubble of the old show's bombed out foundation. But my opinion counts for my site not this one. I trust you are familiar with the back-door pilot, such as was used to spin-off NCIS from JAG and NCIS Los Angeles from NCIS. "Zuma Canyon" functions quite like a "front-door pilot" would in that it bridges some characters and story back to the old show. It is an approach so uncommon that it is probably not even an industry-recognised term but... do you have a better way to describe it? I have been thinking on this for hours now and that is the best i have so far. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 04:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Name/Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Law & Order: Los Angeles → Law & Order: LA — I think this page should be moved to Law & Order: LA (from Law & Order: Los Angeles) on the basis that the show itself has changed it's title. It can be seen in the 9th episode which aired originally on April 11, 2011 at 9:00PM (EST). SVU4671 (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Series title has been changed. Would boldly move myself, but the redirect has history. oknazevad (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Law & Order Los Angeles ended in December 2010. Law & Order : LA stands on its own and content should be moved to a new article for the new show. "Zuma Canyon" serves as a "front-door pilot" bridging it back to the old show but going in its own new direction. I do note that NBC has said new show, reworked show, continuation, and every option in that spectrum so pretty much NBC is an inconsistent and thus unreliable primary source. As such this vote of mine may change if NBC ever makes a lasting decision in how they are billing this. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 04:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize if this response seems lengthy. Although I agree that NBC isn't sure how to bill it, any chance you can link us to a source where they unqualifiedly call it a "new show"? I believe their purpose in calling it a new show is to try to attract more viewers to "try it out". Not that this conversation belongs in a move discussion, but I would question whether what could be a media hype tactic should play a role in objectively determining the name. Additionally, I don't think there are enough sources to support "ending" the L&O:Los Angeles article, and starting a new article about the "new show."
- Even if NBC itself confused, I'd argue (pending a list of sources stating the alternative) that most secondary sources agree that this is a continuation of the earlier show with major cast changes. Looking forward to a response.--Gnowor^T_C 18:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I would be against but for one thing, the show's intertitle even changed the name to just "Law & Order: LA". I could see if NBC's promos were the only ones calling it "Law & Order: LA", but you've got news articles, blog sites, and even on the official website they've changed the background to "Law & Order: LA". Redundant to keep the title "Law & Order: Los Angeles" and it's being called "L&O: LA". I think it should be reversed "Law & Order: Los Angeles" be the re-direct page and "Law & Order: LA" be the main page. I support the change 100%. And I am reading, don't you mean support Deliriousandlost ?--66.217.112.3 (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If the shows title card has changed, then off course it is time to change the article's name. Although they do not have their title cards changed, both Special Victims Unit (SVU) and Criminal Intent (CI) are known to be often abbreviated, especially in t.v. commercials. There is no use naming the article, something that it is not. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 12:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
stronnd support: The new title of the show is Law & Order: LA as per the 4/11/11 episode on NBC. Shouldn't the article be directed to this page and not Law & Order: Los Angeles/L&O: LA/L&O: L.A./Law & Order: L.A.. NCIS: Los Angeles is not NCIS: LA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.246.237 (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - Due to both primary source and secondary source.--Gnowor^T_C 18:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - It should be named based on whatever the current title card says ("Law & Order: LA"). Law & Order: SVU and Law & Order: CI use the whole thing (Special Victims Unit, Criminal Intent) although they are often abbreviated by everyone else. However in this case, it's already being used as abbreviated, ergo: the main page should be Law & Order: LA and the redirect should be Law & Order: Los Angeles. I support title page name change as well.--PaulaSVU (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cliffhanger in "Hayden Tract"

This page currently states the following:

Show runner René Balcer released a video shortly after its cancellation was announced, urging fans to call NBC to renew the series, as the season ends with a cliff-hanger.^[19][20]

I submitted the following revision, which another editor reverted. I'm hoping to discuss this issue here.

Show runner René Balcer released a video shortly after its cancellation was announced, urging fans to call NBC to renew the series, and stating that the season would end with a cliff-hanger.^[19][20] (However, due to the episodes being aired out of sequence, the episode he referred to, "Hayden Tract", was in fact not the final episode to be aired.)

First, why is the original version incorrect? Because it states that "the season ends with a cliff-hanger" as if it were a fact. But this is untrue, because the final episode to be aired will be "Westwood", which is not a cliffhanger, and in fact contains the first cast rather than the second cast.

Second, what is the evidence that he was referring to "Hayden Tract"? Here I admit the ground is thinner. HT does have the last production number (0122) but by itself that's not evidence. But consider: In the YouTube video with Balcer [2], which is already cited on this page as a source (and in fact is the only source for Balcer's original claim), Balcer states, "as you'll see from this episode, we end with a cliffhanger, so if you want to see how it works out for Corey, you've gotta write [to the powers that be].... By the first episode next season you'll see how it works out for our old friend T.J." (in the video at 1:20). So he is referring to a cliff-hanger in which the fate of Detective Tomas "TJ" Jaruszalski, played by Corey Stoll, hangs in the balance. And the only such episode of this show is "Hayden Tract".

I think this argument is solid. I think that a footnote could be added that refers to the video, and perhaps includes an explanatory sentence. So the only question is whether the use of this logic violates WP:OR. I think it doesn't, because "Hayden Tract" does in fact have the last production number, and Balcer is clearly referring to that episode. But since he doesn't give its name I would rather see if there's a consensus here before submitting my edits again. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 20:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I restored your edit shortly afterward; I don't think the lack of an explicit mention of the episode title is any reason to not take the plain meaning of Balcer's statement as referring to "Hayden Tract". Frankly, with rare exceptions, episode titles are rarely used in casual conversation, so its absence is not surprising, nor does it make the statement ambiguous. oknazevad (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Tract is the season finale! It wasn't the last aired because they had to burn off leftover eps. with the original cast. No question or debate about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caringtype1 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TNT pickup

I've removed this addition, sourced to this page, because I literally cannot find anyone news article reporting on the show being picked up by TNT. I've hit Google News, Google, etc. and all the stories are just about B.D Wong leaving the show. I'm also rather hesitant to rely on this as the sole source because "Trevor Jones" does not show any professional reporter by that name on Google (so not a well-known expert in his field) and the website is on Wordpress and has no domain name. I would really like more confirmation if this is true or not. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked TNT's own PR website, and there's nothing there. But if you look at the other material on the site that's sourcing this, they're all legitimate news. I can't make up my mind whether we have a hoax, or perhaps someone fooled by a faked press release (as happened a while back with L&O:CI's silly fangirls faking a cancellation press release in a fit of pique) or whether we have someone with legitimate advance knowledge. For the moment, I think the source and announcement are both iffy enough they don't pass WP:RS, but it's probably best to keep a weather eye on Google for the next few days. Rene Balcer said he planned to shop the show elsewhere, TNT has been looking for a companion piece to Southland, and LOLA would be a good fit. Drmargi (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Law & Order: LA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Law & Order: LA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726180453/http://www.imagen.org/news/imagen-awards/2011/06/nominees-26th-annual-imagen-awards-announced to http://www.imagen.org/news/imagen-awards/2011/06/nominees-26th-annual-imagen-awards-announced

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Episode list

With an edit on 2 January 2014, the article List of Law & Order: LA episodes was redirected to the episode list in this one. There appears to have been no discussion about this redirection, but I wonder if it should be considered an undiscussed merger, as previous discussion decided not to merge the articles. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]